M. M. HUSAIN, J. The straight question agitated in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is whether or not a Magistrate proceeding against a party under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and call upon that party to furnish personal and surety bonds for appearance in Court as and when required for the purposes of the inquiry contemplated by Section 116, Cr. P. C. 2. It is not disputed that on the basis of a Chalani report, dated April 10, 1980 submitted by Haidergranj police in the district of Faizabad against the petitioners, the S. D. M. Bikapur issued summons to the petitioners under Section 113 Cr. P. C. When they put in appearance on May 16, 1980 the learned S. D. O. directed each of them to file personal bonds of Rs. 2,000 and two sureties each of the same amount. These bonds were demanded in order to ensure presence of the petitioners in Court as and when required for the purposes of the case. The peitioners were not in a position to immediately furnish the required bonds. One days time was therefore granted to them to file the required bonds. 3. In this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioners to furnish bonds for appearance in Court and the impugned order requiring the petitioners to file the said bonds being without jurisdiction has resulted in an abuse of the process of Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the patties, I find force in this contention. Section 107 Cr. P. C. is, from its very nature, preventive and not punitive. It is not intended for the punishment of past offences. Its sole object is to prevent acts which may amount to or lead to a breach of peace in future. As the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guilty of an offence it is but necessary that the power conferred upon a Magistrate by the provision of law is exercised strictly within its four comers. Section 107 Cr. As the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guilty of an offence it is but necessary that the power conferred upon a Magistrate by the provision of law is exercised strictly within its four comers. Section 107 Cr. P. C. lays down that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace, or disturb public tranquillity, or do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or Without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. 4. Section 111 Cr. P. C. lays down that when a Magistrate acts under Section 107 Cr. P. C. he shall pass a written order under Section 111 Cr. P. C. setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the terms for which it is to be enforced and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) reted. 5. Section 112 Cr. P. C. lays down that if the person hi respect of whom an order under Section 111 Cr. P. C. is made, is present hi Court it shall be read over to him, or if he so desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him. 6. Section 113 Cr. P. C. prescribes that if such person is not present in Court, the Magistrate shall issue a summon requiring bun to appear, or, when such person is in cstody, a warrant directing the officer, in whose custody he is, to bring before the Court. 7. Section 114 Cr. P. C. lays down that a summons issued under Section 113 Cr. P. C. shall be accompanied by an order passed under Section 111 Cr. P. C. 8. Section 115 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the required person and Section 116 Cr. P. C. deals with the inquiry into the matter. P. C. lays down that a summons issued under Section 113 Cr. P. C. shall be accompanied by an order passed under Section 111 Cr. P. C. 8. Section 115 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the required person and Section 116 Cr. P. C. deals with the inquiry into the matter. Sub-section (1) of that section lays down that when the person concerned is brought before the Court, the Magistrate shall proceed to enquire into the truth of information upon which action has been taken and will take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Sub-section (2) of Section 116 Cr. P. C. lay down that procedure of the inquiry contemplated by sub-section (1) shall be the same which has been prescribed by the Code of conducting trial and recording evidence in summons case. Sub-section (3) of Section 116 Cr. P. C. lays down that if, after commencement and before the completion of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity etc. , the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing, shall direct the person concerned to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour till the conclusion of the inquiry These bonds are obviously for ensuring attendance of the person concerned in the Court of the Magistrate during the course of the inquiry. 9. There is thus nothing in the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code dealing with proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. which may authorise Magistrate to call upon the person concerned to file bonds for appearing in Court as and when required by that Court. 10. In Madhu Limaye v. S. D. M. , Monghyr (1), it has been laid down that: ". . . . . the inquiry under Section 117 Cr. P. C. Cold) corresponding to Section 116 C. P. C. (new) is to ascertain the truth of the necessary information. Sub-section (A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 2486.) contemplates an immediate inquiry into the truth of the information. It is pending the completion of the inquiry that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary and in default it is necessary to put the person in custody. Sub-section (A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 2486.) contemplates an immediate inquiry into the truth of the information. It is pending the completion of the inquiry that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary and in default it is necessary to put the person in custody. If the Magistrate makes no effort to enquire into the truth of the allegations and adjourns the case say from day to day and yet asks for an interim bond places him in custody for default it becomes entirely one sided. It would be moving too far away from the guarantee of freedom if the view is permitted that without any inquiry into the truth of the information sufficient to make out a prima jade case a person is to be put in jeopardy of detention. " While making that observation the view of a division Bench of this Court in Vasudeo Ojha v. State of U. P. (1958 A. W. R. 101.), wherein it was laid down that under Section 91 Cr. P. C. (old) the Magistrate could commit a person to jail custody for refusing to Iurni,=h sureties, was disapproved and it was specifically laid down by the Supreme Court that: " Apart from the fact that Section 55 Cr. P. C. (old) deals with special cases of arrest and cannot be made applicable. Section 107 itself speaks that the procedure of Chapter VIII that is to say, the procedure prescribed in Sections 112, 113 and 114 should be followed. Similarly Section 91 may be available till the order under Section 112 is drawn up. After it is drawn up the Magistrate has to act under Sections 113 and 117 (1 ). Section 91 therefore has no room. " Thus the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the present case cannot be said to be justified under Section 88 Cr. P. C. (new) which corresponds to Section 91 of the old Code. 11. The impugned order dated May 16, 1980 was obviously not passed by the learned Magistrate undee Section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. because it was passed prior to the commencement of the inquiry under Section 116 (1) of the Code and it was not passed for maintenance of peace and public tranquillity during the pendency of the proceedings. 11. The impugned order dated May 16, 1980 was obviously not passed by the learned Magistrate undee Section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. because it was passed prior to the commencement of the inquiry under Section 116 (1) of the Code and it was not passed for maintenance of peace and public tranquillity during the pendency of the proceedings. On the other hand, it was passed solely for the purpose of procuring the attendance of the petitioners as and when required during the pendency of the inquiry. Since the learned Magisrate had no jurisdiction to that effect, the impugned order is wholly illegal. If it is given effect to and the petitioners are called upon to execute the late required bond in pursuance of the impugned order, it will obviously amount to an abuse of the process of court 12. I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the impugned order, dated May 16, 1980 passed by the S. D. M. Bikapur in proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. wherein the petitioners attendance is required. The petitioners shall not furnish the required bonds and if the same have already been furnished they shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. It is, however, open to the learned Magistrate to pass an order requiring interim bonds to be furnished by the petitioners under Section 116 (3) Cr. P. C. if the conditions laid down by that sub-section stand satisfied and the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for preventing breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. .